Why I think America needs Hillary Clinton

Exploring the possibility of electing Mrs. Clinton

While I was watching the third and final presidential debate in a downtown Montreal bar, one of my friends texted me: “Who’s winning?” I responded that the ultimate winner was cynicism. Although I am not enthusiastic about the Democratic nominee, I believe America needs to elect Hillary Clinton.

Most Canadians care about American politics as much as they care about their own. “Geography has made us neighbours, history has made us friends, economics has made us partners, necessity has made us allies,” John F. Kennedy once said in a speech. It seems, this year more than ever, as election day closes in, many Canadians are most interested in knowing how this reality TV-like campaign will end.

The two candidates’ personalities and past actions have undeniably stolen the show away from party policies. It is evident to me that we need to think of nominees as leaders of their own movement before leaders of their party. In fact, many Republican members of Congress have said they will vote against their nominee, Donald Trump, according to a report published by the American news outlet, The Daily Beast.

For the last month or so, we’ve been preoccupied with the three presidential debates. Although it allows candidates to expand on their values and ideas, I believe its main purpose is to reveal their demeanours their attitudes toward opposition. From this perspective, Trump proved to be downright unfit to be president. His condescending tone, his odious claims and his constant attempts to interrupt both his rival and the mediator spoke volumes about the kind of leader he would be.

The question I always ask myself when analyzing political ideas is fairly straightforward: does the candidate, or the party, advocate for equal treatment of every individual? Trump, for instance, claims that America needs his kind of thinking, which allowed him to turn the money inherited from his father into an enterprise worth billions of dollars. Reaganomics—economic policies introduced by President Ronald Reagan—proved marginal tax reductions to be successful for improving the middle-class quality of life.

However, I don’t believe that being lenient with corporations and the wealthiest citizens, banking on them to make it rain on the middle-class, is the right thing to do for a fairer country. Trump is offering a short-term solution, whereas Clinton aims to attack the loopholes in the corporate tax system and to implement regulations that ensure multi-billionaires pay not only a reasonable share, but also fair surcharges. Given that some corporations and individuals make more money than they spend, while some other are unable to live a decent life, there’s no way to make America a better place if there is no will to ease the greed.

Although Clinton is only a mild progressive, she appeals to me because Bernie Sanders’s ghost constantly follows her. The former Democratic candidate said in a video interview for NowThisNews, that he believes in about 80 per cent of Clinton’s platform. He encourages everyone who took part in his movement to stand up and ensure Clinton realizes this 80 per cent of the platform. I’m confident Sanders’ supporters won’t give up their cause.

Personal attacks between the two candidates have gotten slightly out of hand lately. Both of them have been involved in multiple scandals. I do not hold either of them in such high regards for that matter, though I’m aware there are wild manipulations from both parties’ establishments.

To be frank though, if I were American, I would rather have a president who does “politics as usual” and hides things from the population than a president who’s a complete misogynist. We tend to forget that there’s a large structure behind the president who, although it is theoretical, will ensure the transparency of a possible Clinton government. Because the president is America’s face, I worry more about Trump’s perpetuation of rape culture than Clinton’s little secrets.

My position pro-Clinton ultimately lies in her apparent perception of the American Way and the American Dream. Unlike Trump, who believes in equal opportunities for everyone to stamp on their fellows to get rich, Clinton claims she’ll advocate for equal opportunities for everyone to live a decent life, no matter where you come from. My trust in her has, of course, diminished, especially the since the Clinton Foundation donations, which question her ethic. Yet, I can’t not support her, given that Trump goes against everything I stand for in terms of fairness.

Moreover, The Democratic Party Platform plans to fight for women’s, LGBT and disabled people’s rights. Republicans have this frustrating propensity to want to impose their beliefs on everyone, especially when it comes to LGBT and abortion rights. Donald Trump has not held a consistent discourse regarding his views on same-sex marriage, according to the Human Rights Campaign. From this perspective, it would be no accident that he chose Mike Pence for Vice President running mate. Pence “has been an outspoken opponent of equal rights for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender citizens,” according to a report from the Washington Post.

Hillary Clinton is far from being an ideal candidate. But given the other option, I do think she needs to be the next president of the United States. As I consider the polarization of voters that will lead to an inevitable dissatisfaction, I hope to see a government that will be concerned with economic fairness and social justice.


Donald J. Trump is my personal choice

A look into the Republican candidate’s policies before next week’s election

Bill Clinton’s job approval rating reached 73 per cent, his highest recorded, after his infamous sex scandals and impeachment. Clearly this, and numerous unconfirmed sexual assaults, have not stopped him from being beloved for his policies.

Policy is what matters in an election, not whether or not candidates are good people. Neither candidate is a good person, so from here we must discern whose policy is better. The clear answer is Trump’s.

Trump is the peace candidate. People claim he’s divisive and dangerous, but Clinton’s policies have politicians fearing World War III. And no, I am not being hyperbolic.

Clinton doubled down during the third debate on her plans to enact a no-fly zone over Syria and establish safe zones for Syrians. According to The Guardian, many military personnel feel this would likely lead to an air occupation and open conflict with the Russians, who were invited into Syria by President Bashar al-Assad. Some believe it could lead to nuclear war.

Mikhail Gorbachev, the Soviet leader at the end of Cold War, said the situation has “reached a dangerous point.” After the Kremlin stated it would shoot down Western aircrafts, Gorbachev told the Russian news agency, RIA Novosti: “We need to renew dialogue. Stopping it was the biggest mistake.”

Trump sees Russia as the powerful nation it is. He has repeated throughout the debates that he wants to sit down and negotiate with Russia and come to a diplomatic solution.

“It’s actually Hillary’s policies which are much scarier than Donald Trump’s, who does not want to go to war with Russia,” said U.S. Green Party candidate Jill Stein during an interview with the American television network, C-SPAN. “He wants to seek modes of working together, which is the route we need to follow.”

Such radically interventionist policies make Clinton a rehash of neoconservatives like George W. Bush. Trump’s outlook on interventionism, outlined in his book Crippled America advocates helping out only if countries can reimburse the U.S. This should be music to people’s ears.

Trump is also pro-ethics and transparency. In an Oct. 18 press release, he promised a constitutional amendment imposing congressional term limits, banning executive officials and members of Congress lobbying for five years, expanding the definition of “lobbyist,” banning former executive officials from lobbying for foreign governments and banning foreign lobbyists from interfering in American elections.

Hillary’s ethical stances simply do not stack up. Although Clinton has said she wishes to expand the definition of “lobbyist” and has historically supported a two-year ban on former government servants taking jobs at companies they oversaw, her relationship with lobbyists is far more concerning than Trump’s.

The Washington Post reported that Clinton’s campaign has received $7 million in donations from federally registered lobbyists, while Trump’s campaign has received no such money. Lobbyists raised an additional $2 million for the Hillary Victory Fund, a joint fundraising committee with the DNC. That’s a lot of owed favours.

WikiLeaks revealed that Clinton participated in the unethical campaign financing that Trump wishes to ban. Clinton advisors took contributions of questionable legality from foreign lobbyists registered under the Foreign Agents Registration Act, according to The Daily Caller. Her campaign accepted such donations based on donors’ relationships with the State Department during Clinton’s tenure there.

Her campaign may have used American lobbyists to launder this money, according to WikiLeaks. Campaign staff admitted in the leaked WikiLeaks emails that donors have pushed policy change onto Clinton. That should be terrifying—she can be bought. Trump, however, is not beholden to the same expectations from lobbyists.

Clinton is corrupt. WikiLeaks showed she took money in exchange for favours from both Morocco and Qatar, using the Clinton Foundation, while she was Secretary of State. These countries have awful human rights records, as both jail homosexuals and allow marital rape, according to Human Rights Watch. This shows she cannot be trusted to put American interests before hers or foreigner leaders’.

While we cannot verify the full authenticity of the WikiLeaks leaks, they raise disturbing questions regarding Clinton’s ethics.

Trump’s zero-tolerance immigration policies, while viewed as promoting inequality, put Americans first. Clinton’s policy, to deport only violent illegal immigrants, would be completely unfair to Americans who’ve attained citizenship legally.

The American Immigration Center explained while wait times for citizenship vary, a person moving to the U.S. can wait upwards of six years before being granted citizenship.

There would be few incentives to obey immigration law in Clinton’s America. The Center for Immigration Studies found that over 2.5 million people entered the U.S. illegally since President Obama took office—an average of about 350,000 per year. Amnesty can only make this number go up. Protecting your citizens, laws and sovereignty is not racism.

Trump’s immigration plan would also benefit current American citizens. The Federal Reserve found youth decline in employment is linked to unskilled, immigrant labour.

Trump plans to create a resumé bank for inner-city youth to help replace jobs made available by the removal of illegal immigrants and the elimination of the J-1 visa program. Trump claims this would greatly help Americans in disenfranchised communities, including many predominantly black communities.

Many accuse Trump of misogyny. While he has said things others deem offensive, it is also worth noting he is campaigning for paid maternity leave. Trump has been accused of being out for the rich, but has proposed a huge tax break on lower-income families, allowing families with a combined income of up to $50,000 to pay no taxes.

Clinton is not the moral candidate. Those siding with her for moral reasons forget she flip-flops on progressivism. Clinton was an opponent of gay marriage until 2013, according to PolitiFact. Some leaked Podesta e-mails imply she still privately holds this view.

Both candidates have scandals, from “locker room talk” to illegal e-mail servers, and neither of these candidates are clean choices. But Clinton’s corrupt, war-hungry policies make it is clear that Donald J. Trump is the candidate to elect. His pro-American policies will Make America Great Again.

Exit mobile version